As you were. Nothing to see here. [url=http://www.landoverbaptist.net/showthread.php?p=1119284It's all just a hoax[/url

Elmer has quite the thing for sodomy doesn't he? Hiding in plain sight and all that.



Was delighted to see my mate's sister as one of the ones going ballistic when Philae landed. Not sure how involved in it all she's been but great to see her there anyway.



I just hope they can sort out the power issue quickly or it might go very quiet very soon. It's an amazing achievement whatever happens

Just to hark back to the comparison between the Philae landing and the Apollo moon landings and the question of the hype (or lack of it) attached to both, as a 12 year old at the time of the Apollo 11 moon landing I can confirm that it was a huge story and not one single element of the media did not carry wall-to-wall coverage of the whole eight day mission even to the extent where the BBC opened up transmission times at a time where breakfast TV was unknown (other than for major events like Olympic Games).



Other than the mind shattering fact that it was a manned mission to another planet (well ok, a moon) there had been a constant feed of missions building up to it, I only recently realised how quickly they had been firing off manned rockets in 1968 and 69 and the first manned craft to leave earths orbit had only happened seven months before and only three more missions took place before the moon landing.



So the news coverage came thick and fast in that year and with the limitation of just three TV channels you couldn't really miss it and in addition to that, the cherry on the cake, was that NASA were very pro-active in their publicity work and were more than happy to send out A4 colour photos from previous Apollo and Gemini missions, on eof our English Masters (we didn't have plain old teachers at grammar school you know) wrote to Nasa and received pretty quickly a big portfolio of photos and information on their work which was like having the holy grail posted to your school.



So yes, the hype in that one or two year period was intense and I was one of those who got up at some ridiculous hour in the middle of the night to watch Neil Armstrong step onto the moon even though the images were so bad that you could have been watching anything, it just felt like a huge life event, live on TV.



In many ways the Philae landing is even more remarkable but given the fact that non-star-watchers were completely unaware of it until this week, given that its taken years to get to this point with no other missions or any importance attached to it, and given that its not American then its hardly surprising that there has not been anything like the life important "happening" attached to it, more the pity.

the fact that you even found this website is quite worrying.

you do know that sites a parody/satire dont you?

But the numbers, though. Something about this hoax landing simply [url=http://freetofindtruth.blogspot.co.uk/2014/11/33-philae-space-probe-comet-landing-hoax.htmldoesn't add up[/url



Anyway it is all lies since as most of us now accept, the world is concave. You only need add watch?v=XrcwpwhChUg into a popular video site and there is the proof.

It's ALIVE! Quote From 2.9 billion miles away, NASA's New Horizons spacecraft let its handlers know on Saturday that it has awakened from hibernation and is ready for the climax of its nine-year trip to Pluto. The first signals were received at the mission's control at Johns Hopkins University's Applied Physics Laboratory in Maryland via a giant radio antenna in Australia just before 9:30 p.m. ET, nearly four and a half hours after it was sent by the piano-sized probe. It takes that long for signals to travel between there and here at the speed of light. www.nbcnews.com/science/space/it ... rk-n262996 '" Funnily enough we don't actually have ANY decent images of Pluto, at all, ever. People seem to assume we have images of everything, but in Pluto's case, they're wrong. Even the best Hubble images show nothing but vague patches. Date for your diary is July 14 when New Horizons will make it's flypast of Pluto and nod oubt some approach images wll start appearing befoe then too. Fascinating to see what good ole Pluto actually looks like.

It's ALIVE! Quote From 2.9 billion miles away, NASA's New Horizons spacecraft let its handlers know on Saturday that it has awakened from hibernation and is ready for the climax of its nine-year trip to Pluto. The first signals were received at the mission's control at Johns Hopkins University's Applied Physics Laboratory in Maryland via a giant radio antenna in Australia just before 9:30 p.m. ET, nearly four and a half hours after it was sent by the piano-sized probe. It takes that long for signals to travel between there and here at the speed of light. www.nbcnews.com/science/space/it ... rk-n262996 '" Funnily enough we don't actually have ANY decent images of Pluto, at all, ever. People seem to assume we have images of everything, but in Pluto's case, they're wrong. Even the best Hubble images show nothing but vague patches. Date for your diary is July 14 when New Horizons will make it's flypast of Pluto and nod oubt some approach images wll start appearing befoe then too. Fascinating to see what good ole Pluto actually looks like.

For anybody who’s hardy enough on Saturday night & more alarmingly, with nothing better to do. www.universetoday.com/116641/don ... -the-year/ Weather permitting of course .

For anybody who’s hardy enough on Saturday night & more alarmingly, with nothing better to do. www.universetoday.com/116641/don ... -the-year/ Weather permitting of course .

Anyone know a good stargazing app for an iphone.



I was wanting that one where you turn your camera on point it at the sky and it tells you what star you are looking at.



anyone any ideas

www.icandiapps.com/icandiapps/

www.icandiapps.com/icandiapps/

NASA has just released the highest definition image of the Andromeda galaxy, compliments of the Hubble Space Telescope. It's hard to comprehend just how many stars are cotained in Andromeda, but this image is so detailed if you zoom in, many individual stars packed tightly together (in reality any two are actually light years apart) can actually be resolved. Awesome. www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files ... es_jpg.jpg

NASA has just released the highest definition image of the Andromeda galaxy, compliments of the Hubble Space Telescope. It's hard to comprehend just how many stars are cotained in Andromeda, but this image is so detailed if you zoom in, many individual stars packed tightly together (in reality any two are actually light years apart) can actually be resolved. Awesome. www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files ... es_jpg.jpg

Quote McClennan="McClennan"After what we mentioned a few weeks ago. Is the Big Bang theory a mistake? iai.tv/video/bang-goes-the-big-bang'" We have another development. [url=http://phys.org/news/2015-02-big-quantum-equation-universe.htmlNo Big Bang? Quantum equation predicts universe has no beginning[/url. It does seem more logical to believe the universe has been around forever and will continue to be doesn't it rather than a bang. The latter has never sat happy with me.

Quote McClennan="McClennan"After what we mentioned a few weeks ago. Is the Big Bang theory a mistake? iai.tv/video/bang-goes-the-big-bang'" We have another development. [url=http://phys.org/news/2015-02-big-quantum-equation-universe.htmlNo Big Bang? Quantum equation predicts universe has no beginning[/url. It does seem more logical to believe the universe has been around forever and will continue to be doesn't it rather than a bang. The latter has never sat happy with me.

Quote Ferocious Aardvark="Ferocious Aardvark"NASA has just released the highest definition image of the Andromeda galaxy, compliments of the Hubble Space Telescope. It's hard to comprehend just how many stars are cotained in Andromeda, but this image is so detailed if you zoom in, many individual stars packed tightly together (in reality any two are actually light years apart) can actually be resolved. Awesome. www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files ... es_jpg.jpg'" Breathtaking that mate. I would love to be able to comprehend that or even see it with my own eyes. Thanks.

Quote Ferocious Aardvark="Ferocious Aardvark"NASA has just released the highest definition image of the Andromeda galaxy, compliments of the Hubble Space Telescope. It's hard to comprehend just how many stars are cotained in Andromeda, but this image is so detailed if you zoom in, many individual stars packed tightly together (in reality any two are actually light years apart) can actually be resolved. Awesome. www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files ... es_jpg.jpg'" Breathtaking that mate. I would love to be able to comprehend that or even see it with my own eyes. Thanks.

Just a random muse I had.



Our own Sun converts 700 million tons of hydrogen into 695 million tons of helium every second. (The remainder escapes as pure energy. Of which only about one-billionth reaches Earth, and a third of that gets reflected).



Andromeda contains at minimum a trillion stars, i.e. 10 [size=5012[/size



If on average they burn same as our own Sun then when you look at that faint fuzzy patch which is Andromeda you are watching 70,000,000,000,000,000,000 tons of hydrogen being spent every second.



But that's only double the amount in our own Milky Way galaxy. Which to put it in perspective, if Andromeda was twice the size of a RL ball, and the Milky Way was same size as a RL ball, they would be only about 20 ball-lengths apart.



Andromeda is heading our way at something like 80 miles per second but will take 4.5 billion years to collide. The view as it approaches will be stunning.



And the Milky Way's the daddy, as it contains more dark matter than Andromeda, making us more massive, so there!

www.bbc.com/future/story/2013042 ... n-in-space

www.bbc.com/future/story/2013042 ... n-in-space

Someone told me all the Hubble pictures are in black and white and the colour is added later by NASA using their interpretations of what is being viewed. Is that right?

Quote Bullseye="Bullseye"Someone told me all the Hubble pictures are in black and white and the colour is added later by NASA using their interpretations of what is being viewed. Is that right?'" Yes and no. Hubble doesn't have a "colour camera", all images are taken in grayscale. Many images are published showing either false, or partly false colours (compared to what you might see with your own peepers if you could) but never without explaining what has been done, and usually to illustrate specific things. However, Hubble can and does produce amazing "natural colour" images. The basic way to do this is to take images through red, green and blue filters. Then combine the results. So the shot through the red filter only lets through the red part of the visible light spectrum; so you know that that image is actually just the shades of red; same for green, same for blue. Combine them and hey presto, full colour! hubblesite.org/gallery/behind_th ... /index.php As for "interpretation", it's all a question of degree. For example, a picture of the Crab nebula may look lovely and colourful, and the light and colours recorded are genuine and "real". Yet you would never experience it like that, as the image is compressed light that actually may have taken a powerful telescope hours to gather. If you were in space looking at it, it would be extremely faint and not very colourful at all. To qualify the basic answer, Hubble has various cameras including the Wide Field Camera 3 (WFC3) which sees near-ultraviolet, visible and near-infrared; the Cosmic Origins Spectrograph (COS), a spectrograph that sees exclusively in ultraviolet light; the Space Telescope Imaging Spectrograph (STIS), a spectrograph that sees ultraviolet, visible and near-infrared light; and the Near Infrared Camera and Multi-Object Spectrometer (NICMOS) which essentially sees heat not light, if I can put it that way (it's all just different parts of the spectrum). As you can see, an infrared image HAS to be given "false colours" since we can't see infrared, or much UV, and so they have to interpret these images into visible light images so we have an impression of what Hubble sees. Same for images from X-ray telescopes, or Radio telescopes.

Quote Bullseye="Bullseye"Someone told me all the Hubble pictures are in black and white and the colour is added later by NASA using their interpretations of what is being viewed. Is that right?'" Yes and no. Hubble doesn't have a "colour camera", all images are taken in grayscale. Many images are published showing either false, or partly false colours (compared to what you might see with your own peepers if you could) but never without explaining what has been done, and usually to illustrate specific things. However, Hubble can and does produce amazing "natural colour" images. The basic way to do this is to take images through red, green and blue filters. Then combine the results. So the shot through the red filter only lets through the red part of the visible light spectrum; so you know that that image is actually just the shades of red; same for green, same for blue. Combine them and hey presto, full colour! hubblesite.org/gallery/behind_th ... /index.php As for "interpretation", it's all a question of degree. For example, a picture of the Crab nebula may look lovely and colourful, and the light and colours recorded are genuine and "real". Yet you would never experience it like that, as the image is compressed light that actually may have taken a powerful telescope hours to gather. If you were in space looking at it, it would be extremely faint and not very colourful at all. To qualify the basic answer, Hubble has various cameras including the Wide Field Camera 3 (WFC3) which sees near-ultraviolet, visible and near-infrared; the Cosmic Origins Spectrograph (COS), a spectrograph that sees exclusively in ultraviolet light; the Space Telescope Imaging Spectrograph (STIS), a spectrograph that sees ultraviolet, visible and near-infrared light; and the Near Infrared Camera and Multi-Object Spectrometer (NICMOS) which essentially sees heat not light, if I can put it that way (it's all just different parts of the spectrum). As you can see, an infrared image HAS to be given "false colours" since we can't see infrared, or much UV, and so they have to interpret these images into visible light images so we have an impression of what Hubble sees. Same for images from X-ray telescopes, or Radio telescopes.

186,000 miles per second. The speed limit of the Universe. Fast, unimaginably so, right? Meh. www.universetoday.com/119042/whe ... st-enough/

186,000 miles per second. The speed limit of the Universe. Fast, unimaginably so, right? Meh. www.universetoday.com/119042/whe ... st-enough/

Just to keep the daily wail supporters on the edge of their paranoia.





The optics, sensors, resolution of Hubble are now , in digital terms, obsolete. Think about what Google earth can show you, and that is pretty low grade stuff to what the current satellites looking at the earth can see.



Just imagine what you thought was fun when looking at your house and then think about what can actually be seen.



Sleep tight.

Hubble has some equipment 20 years old although a couple of cameras were installed just a few years back, but yes, obsolete in terms of what equivalent stuff could be built in two decades on, certainly NO in terms of what Hubble can do and see. Which is why it remains heavily oversubscribed.



Plus, Hubble doesn't suffer from atmospheric interference so apart from turbulence (which corrective optics can improve, but only for narrow fields of view) it has truly dark skies, compared with anywhere on Earth.



Plus, Much of the spectrum simply doesn't make it through the atmosphere so space-based cameras will always remain the only option for that task.



Oh - and there's no comparison at all with Earth mapping satellites - They are seeing objects at 500 miles or so. Hubble is seeing 13+ billion light years.



Finally can I assure Wail readers that if the authorities wanted to spy on your house, they would probably get better resolution images from a nearby parked van. They don't actually want to see your roof. They are after YOU and the views through your windows.

Roundabout now, the Dawn spacecraft should just be entering an orbit around the asteroid, or dwarf planet, Ceres. Dawn was launched in 2007 and has an ion drive propulsion system. Over the next few months they will get the orbit down to a height of only a couple of hundred miles, but here is a view it took recently from around 29,000 miles. Incidentally they have no idea what the bright spots are, I am assuming it is the portal to the aliens' underground city.

Quote Ferocious Aardvark="Ferocious Aardvark"186,000 miles per second. The speed limit of the Universe. Fast, unimaginably so, right? Meh. www.universetoday.com/119042/whe ... st-enough/'" Pfft. My niece goes faster than that when she hears the ice cream van.

Quote Ferocious Aardvark="Ferocious Aardvark"186,000 miles per second. The speed limit of the Universe. Fast, unimaginably so, right? Meh. www.universetoday.com/119042/whe ... st-enough/'" Pfft. My niece goes faster than that when she hears the ice cream van.

The Galaxy May Be Way Bigger Than We Thought New data analysis suggests that the Milky Way may be 50-percent larger than previously believed Read more: www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-new ... loyrkvb.99

The Galaxy May Be Way Bigger Than We Thought New data analysis suggests that the Milky Way may be 50-percent larger than previously believed Read more: www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-new ... loyrkvb.99

More pics of Ceres "Dawn scientists can now conclude that the intense brightness of the mysterious spots on ‪#‎ceres‬ is due to the reflection of sunlight by highly reflective material on the surface, possibly ice," Christopher Russell, principal investigator for the Dawn mission, said recently. dawn.jpl.nasa.gov/multimedia/ima ... ew&start=0

More pics of Ceres "Dawn scientists can now conclude that the intense brightness of the mysterious spots on ‪#‎ceres‬ is due to the reflection of sunlight by highly reflective material on the surface, possibly ice," Christopher Russell, principal investigator for the Dawn mission, said recently. dawn.jpl.nasa.gov/multimedia/ima ... ew&start=0

It's as I thought. There is no such thing as reality. If you have a bit of spare time to digest a thought-provoking proof, then get your thinking gear around this analysis of what happens to you if you fall into a massive black hole www.bbc.com/earth/story/20150525 ... -clone-you

It's as I thought. There is no such thing as reality. If you have a bit of spare time to digest a thought-provoking proof, then get your thinking gear around this analysis of what happens to you if you fall into a massive black hole www.bbc.com/earth/story/20150525 ... -clone-you